Wikipedia has 2 conflicting policies:

1) Anyone of any age can edit Wikipedia. There are no adult checks for 18, or 15, or even 13. Indeed, it is not even a factor in being able to administer Wikipedia, as there are several teenage administrators. Sean Black boasts about being 15 years of age, for example.

2) Wikipedia has many pornographic and otherwise explicit articles. Articles on such things as Creampies and various BDSM devices are clearly not appropriate for teenagers. I am sure anywhere in the world it would be illegal for minors to view such things.

Most encyclopaedias (real ones) are G-rated. If you want to look at more explicit material, then you go to somewhere with the more explicit stuff in there.

Whilst it is of course useful to find a decent definition of pornographic terms like Creampie, without having to wade through spam to get it, its not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

Now, how come Wikipedia is not getting in to trouble for this? Everywhere else on the internet you get in a world of trouble if you have explicit content available to minors. How can Wikipedia get away with it?

There is a lot of porn or otherwise explicit material on Wikipedia too. I am not sure of the numbers, but I would guess at least 10% of articles are explicit in some way. Yet 13 year olds can view this stuff, and even edit it.

How do they get away with it? You never used to be able to. They used to even press charges on people that violated these things. Have the laws changed? Or have police just got lazier with prosecuting?

Where exactly are you getting that it's illegal to give minors access to porn in the US? Illegal to sell it to them, yes... but things like the Child Online Protection Act and sections of the CDA that barred giving minors access to porn were blocked by courts. I am not sure what laws are like in other countries, but where the main servers are located, I don't think they're technically doing anything illegal.

Now, just because they can doesn't mean they should...

It wouldn't be so bad if all administrators were adults, and if they didn't knowingly allow minors to access it, or at least not the "adult" content part of it.

I guess that w.marsh is basically saying that the laws changed to allow loopholes galore.

Poor old Net Nanny and all of the rest, that parents used so diligently for so long. They all go to hell now. And would they have blocked Wikipedia anyway?

I guess a loophole is a good word for it. Knowingly sending porn to minors is an arrestable offense, in some states at least, but that could never stick to a website, especially a non-commercial one, where minors happen to download porn. Especially if you have a disclaimer buried somewhere you can cite.

I mean... you can find hardcore porn hosted on Google, Yahoo and other servers without any age verification, just for reference.

That's true. I turn safe mode off with my Google searches, but at schools you aren't allowed to turn safe mode off. Some porn slips through anyway, but try typing in something like "Paris Hilton naked" with safe mode on vs safe mode off. You might still get 1 or 2 pornographic images in the first 50 hits with safe mode on, but with it off, they are all porn.

Google can claim that they aren't aware of it, that they are doing their best, and so forth. Can Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't have a safe mode, or a content filter of any kind. There are no warnings, to stop someone from looking up some porn if they are a teenager.

Live Journal has a rule prohibiting anyone from joining if they are under 13 - a rule that they were forced to bring in by law. So does ICQ. But Wikipedia doesn't. Apparently, Wikipedia is above the law.

Live Journal also prohibits explicit sexual expression in "public" posts unless you are at least 18 (or say you are). Sure, its not perfect, but they ban lots of people and try pretty hard to keep it. Does Wikipedia try? Not at all.

Of course, none of the other places have a perverted hatred of lawyers, or the law, like Wikipedia does. Wikipedia seems to think that it can disregard the law, and ban all lawyers, and anyone who has been wronged legally. That way they think that they can be above the law, and not have to worry about it. Except of course, that they are not above the law, and eventually all of this is going to blow up in their face, in a big way.

Who cares... Porn isn't dangerous..

Well, it shouldn't be available for minors. And Wikipedia shouldn't be above the law.

You guys are a hoot. On one hand, we're wrong for deleting porn because it was out of process. Now we're pandering to pedophiles by hosting porn on a server that minors can access. Really, this is too much. hahaha

The disclaimers (general, risk, medical, legal, content) are linked to from every page. That's every page. Not hard to find guys!

The one relevant here is the content disclaimer.

There's no way to tell how old the end user of a computer is. Wikipedia only sees them as an IP address. It's the responsibility of users (ie. parents, if it is children that are in question) to regulate what content can and cannot be viewed. There's plenty of filtering software out there. There's also much worse on the internet than Wikipedia (and even paper encyclopaedias include anatomical pictures).

Well, at least you're not dismissing it as a conspiracy theory. Any other ways you can think of to not bother listening to someone?

And where in this thread does it mention paedophiles? No, this is about law breaking. Wikipedia thinks that they are above the law.

Personally, I couldn't care less who gets to look at porn or anything else really. Age limits are stupid, and just encourage censorship.

However, Wikipedia gets to break a law that nobody else gets to break. This is very wrong.



I agree. And Wikipedia should be banned from all schools and educational institutions, all public libraries, and all places where minors might access it freely. It should be added to Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol and all other filtering software.

Except that Wikipedia advertises itself as being an encyclopaedia, and hence these places don't see the need to do it. This is because they are uneducated as to what Wikipedia really is. And, while Wikipedia censors out places like this which expose this kind of problem, it is going to be difficult for people to become educated.

You know, IIRC, the Supreme Court already ruled that porn sites aren't responsible for preventing minors from viewing the "preview" porn that anyone can see before entering a credit card number. Any 8 year old can go to Google and find literally thousands of websites that have way more hardcore pornography readily available to anyone with a mouse than Wikipedia, and it's all perfectly legal.

So what's all this business about us breaking a law that no one else gets to break? If you're right and it's illegal, which it isn't, then Wikipedia is one of countless websites that display sexually explicit content for anyone to view. It's the internet for chrissakes.

Now, if you want to say that Wikipedia should be blocked by NetNanny or whatever, you might have something of a case, and I can see why people who install draconian protectionist censorship software like that might want to forbid their children access to a massively useful learning tool because they might catch a glimpse of a human anus (not unlike their own) in the process. Such people can't be helped, sadly, and Wikipedia just isn't for them.

I haven't used any of those programs, but I would imagine that it would be trivial to set it up to block pages with certain words in them.

Remember that among all the road articles, US town stubs and Pokemon coverage, there really isn't all that much that is that offensive. There are pictures of people's anatomy, but if kids are browsing an encyclopaedia and looking up the article on "vagina" or "penis" what do they expect?

Remember that there is a porn fork now (as was discussed in a thread on the old board). That's where all the really objectionable stuff goes.

A porn wiki would be quite reasonable, and easy to control then. Then all that educational institutes, libraries etc would have to block is the porn wiki. Wikipedia should set one up, and move all of their content over to there. Then there is no real problem. Oh, and obviously don't let the same admins on en wiki be admins on the porn wiki, for obvious reasons.

And what's the problem with doing that? Many reputable mainstream industries have an "adult" section. Even cable TV has it.

Yes, it should. If they want to look at it fucking let them. I'm 19. I was 19 in January. When I was *14* I was interested in sex and looking at random stuff online and *learning*. It's not a bad thing. The main issue here is that overprotective fundamentalist religious parents don't want their children to grow up and know about sex until it's as late as possible.

Yes, I am agreeing with Ryan and yes, contrary to all the abusive comments about me by SlimVirgin and Raul on Wikipedia, I am a reasonable person.

Look, I am the first person to say that any age limit laws are dumb, and further that any laws that stop someone from doing something which is their own private business and doesn't hurt anyone are dumb. Laws disallowing kids from seeing pornography are dumb. Let's just get that straight. However, when 99% of the population are forced to follow this dumb law, but 1 place is given the green light to have an exception, that's when you have a problem. And, bear in mind, that there is a great division as to whether people think this is a dumb law. I don't represent everyone in saying that, and it seems to be about 50/50 that think its a dumb law vs think its a good law. But the big issue is why should Wikipedia be the exception. If this was some small site that nobody visited, then it wouldn't matter, but this is a pretty popular site that gets a lot of attention. Yet it is getting the big exception. This is the problem.

But 99% of "the population" aren't forced to follow this supposed law... as Ryan has pointed out the US Supreme Court has ruled that websites can't be held responsible if kids download porn of their own free will. You keep saying it's a law - what law exactly? What WP does simply isn't illegal... you should stop representing it as such until you can cite something.

COPPA.

Of course its a frigging law.

Eh, no. COPPA just has to do with requiring privacy statements and the collection of personal information about children under the age of 13. It's confusing, I realize, but it stands for Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

COPA would have actually done what you say, but again, it has been struck down by the courts for the time being.

I remember looking up "fuck" in a dictionary when I was 10. I giggled.

I'm a little amused that someone who is so concerned about WP being censored is proposing it be censored.

So long as they don't have any maximum limits on age I will be okay. Wikipedia shouldn't discrtiminate against greek gods like me that are a few millenia old. The whole issue of "minors" is ridiculous anyway. In my time, 13 was a fine age for a young maiden to get married and start a family. People were so much more practical back then. Life was short for the mortals so they had to live it quickly. The world has moved away form the ways of old now and it saddens me.

13? In my day, children were married before they were even born, at least if they came from a good family. When they consummated their marriage was their own business, and what they looked at or did behind closed doors is nobody's concerns.

looking at soft porn is ok; looking at snuff, rape, gangbang, bondage, granny, incest porn is not. So filter is still important.

nothing wrong with bondage. again, found that 15
then again I was mature earlier than most people ~shrug~

Being the first generation for which the internet was available in our teens either made us gods, or really screwed us up.

Of course, I found my first Penthouse at 9. I'm normal. *twitch*

lol, when was your first Tubgirl?

It's nice to know that a man has standards then.

I still remember my first Goatse.

Then I got over it, and proceeded to gross out my friends. I can't believe I'm so desensitized to it right now...

I don't know, but I got over it. Now all I can think is, "What a sphincter!"

Apparently, browsing Rotten/Ogrish-type sites back in 1995 damaged/numbed/enlightened me. Now I cringe at such things for a moment, but then look at it with a more analytical/fascinated eye.

I first looked at porn when I was 17. But then again I've never been big on breaking rules or laws, even dumb ones.

The time before censorship software existed at homes, colleges, libraries, schools and workplaces was great

I'm apalled when I learn some of my friends (using AOL) aren't even allowed to use chat rooms or email due to neurotic parents

well, if you look from a parent's perspective, it's better to be safe than have your kids taken by some sex predator (AOL chat rooms are full of them).

Has any kid ever actually been taken by sexual predators? Most kids are more knowledgeable about that sort of stuff than their parents. And if they agree to go out to meet a guy/girl who is heaps older than them without knowing much about them, then they are pretty bloody stupid. Not many people would.

actully most sexual predators pretend they are average teens. they will of course tell you a lot about themselves, but all the info are fake of course. And never under-estimate the power of human stupidity and naiveness.

Most certainly it happens. I'm not sure how often they are actually abducted or abused, but one case is one too many!

Hrm. But are teenagers happy to go out by themselves to meet another teenager who they know nothing about, with nobody else with them? I don't think that's very likely either. They would either meet in a public place or else with others there. That's just what you do. And if you're not sure, you don't do it. Kids tend to be more cautious than older folks, I think. Sexual predators using the net? I think they'd have more luck riding a car slowly by the road when kids are walking by themselves. I don't buy it. Every case I've seen in the news of so-called sexual predators using the net to pick up was in reality a case of statutory rape, where they were consenting to it, and knew full well their age. Perhaps there's one I've missed, but I tend to think its more of a myth than anything real.

as for e-mail, i think it's enough if parents to keep track of the e-mail adresses of all the e-mail your kids recieves. But most parents are computer illiterates.



if you just try to pick up a random kid then of course they would refuse because parents usully teach kids not to talk to strangers. On the other hand, online sexual predators use the net as a tool to build trust between himself and the kid, so they no longer being a stranger to the kid.

Hmm. I've never seen it, and while I've heard of examples, when analysed in depth, they were all statutory rape issues.

Okay, one example:

Front page headline: "SEXUAL PREDATOR CAUGHT USING THE INTERNET TO LURE SMALL CHILDREN FOR SEX IN HIS HOTEL ROOM" with a picture of the guy, a 26 year old hotel manager, and a caption saying who he was, including his name.

What do you think? You think of course that the guy had lured some poor underage girl, probably pre-pubescent, and had been doing it routinely for years. But the reality is somewhat different.

The girl wasn't 10 or 12, she was 15, just a few months younger than the age of consent, which is 16.

The girl actually didn't exist either. It was a "sting" by 4 police officers, who sent out messages to guys at random on ICQ to try to lure them in to doing it. This guy fell for it. They had actually got 5 or 6 others up to the stage of promising sex, but none of the others were willing to go through with it, to pay for the plane ticket, and so forth.

The photos that were sent were of one of the 4 officers, the only female officer, but they weren't photos of her aged 15 - they were of her aged 19. And that same police officer talked to him on the phone as well, and she was 23.

This is the sexual predator that lurks online. Some guy who is conned in to an offer of free sex by a good looking 19 year old, who sounds like a 23 year old, who lies and claims to be 15.

Do real sexual predators exist? I have seen no evidence that they do.

However, there is real crime committed on the internet.

People really do commit credit card fraud and other types of fraud. This is real. And police do next to nothing about it.

People really do send viruses and otherwise hack in to people's systems and web sites, and cause major damage. And in most cases police couldn't give a shit.

People really do use the internet to stalk others, harass them, send them anonymous death threats, smear their name and convince others to hurt them or rape them or beat them up or even kill them, all doing it anonymously. Yet police don't even think that cyber stalking exists.

Why do we focus on non-existent crimes when there are real ones that we should be focussing on?

I would rule that he is not-guilty.

He was found guilty, and sentenced to 3 years prison, with a suspended sentence, wholly suspended with a 2 year good behaviour bond.

This was 12 times the prison sentence given out to people who were caught with over 1,000 videos of children aged under 10 having sex, caught in the child porn sting called "Operation Auxin". They got 3 months. He got 3 years. Neither of them went to jail.

Oh sorry I edited my post there, and Lir quoted what I said first off. I was trying to be a bit more succinct with my point.

The major damage though wasn't that he spent time in jail. It was the damage to his reputation. That guy was a top level manager of a major hotel, earning close to US $100,000 per year. He was 26. Thanks to that, he will never work in the hotel industry again. He would basically have to change his identity. You get a conviction for a child sex offence and you can't work anywhere really. And that is what his punishment is. He will never work again.

Don't you love it how the majority of discussions on Wikipedia 'Review' read more like Wikipedia 'Bashfest'?

* There is no law preventing a website from hosting pornograpby.
* Wikipedia does not host pornography.
* You are banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats because that is not appropo for Wikipedia. It's their website and they are allowed to do what they want with it. If you don't like that, call the Wikipedia Foundation, get yourself banned for good, and watch a judge resist laughing as you try to sue them for whatever pathetic violation you can try to blame Wikipedia for.
* The government should not act as parents in the absence of a responsible one. Good thing we have that out of the way.
* There is a clear disclaimer at the bottom of every page about the possible presence of objectable content.
* Wikipedia does not host pornography. Again.
* Wikipedia does not have to take a single step to prevent minors from viewing their page at all with the presence of that disclaimer. With that text which you never bothered to read, they are free of any liability under COPPA/COPAA (also currently being contested by the ACLU)
* You are a troll.

I think that covered everything.

I think that Wikipedia does host pornography. They have quite a lot of articles with pornographic content and links to pornographic images. Perhaps you've missed Wikipedia Project Pornography?

You come here, a site dedicated to criticism, only to start with your first post to bash it. That's rather trollish, isn't it? I think that's how you define troll.

In case you misunderstand that, let's consider this:

If you post on a "Problems with Christianity" newsgroup about what's wrong with Christianity, then you are in the right place.

If you post on a "Bible lovers" newsgroup about what's wrong with Christianity, then you are a troll.

If you post on a "Bible lovers" newsgroup about how great God is, and Jesus, and the Christian way of life, then you are in the right place.

If you post on a "Problems with Christianity" newsgroup about how great Christianity is, then you are a troll.

Learn when you are in the right place. When you're in the wrong place, and just there to stir up trouble, then you're a troll.

"Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica."


Pornographic? Or tasteful?

Pornographic? Or tasteful?

Perhaps your definition of Pornographic is a bit skewed. Last time I checked, pornography was meant to give people boners.




Gee, and I thought the title 'Wikipedia Review' implied, you know, review of Wikipedia policies and practices. Which applies to viewpoints both critical and supportive.

(note to admins please don't remove the above pics, nudity is acceptable in the right context)
(of course banned user malber's "joke" of setting his avatar to a photograph of a penis is not the "right context" at all)

I'm not that interested in this argument as I've already given my view (flick back a page or so) and pointless arguing really because this is one of those issues you just can't get people to change their minds on - but I would like to say please don't insult the whole forum because you dont' disagree with one or two posters, that really is just silly

Note the use of the word 'majority'.

Most topics are perfectly valid criticism, I'm figuring that because you're a Wikipedia Fanboy you just find it hard to accept any criticism as valid so label it as "bashing".

If you read the last page I don't agree with bliss2yu2 on this, I agree with Wikipedia's "Not censored" rule totally - but this forum does allow other points of view. *Shrug* If you don't like that some topics you don't agree with are here, why not just not come here? It's definitely not a valid reason to attack everyone that uses the board. That's almost a 100 people, not all of whom hate Wikipedia like you seem to have characterized everyone as (a few do, yes, but not me and DEFINITELY NOT everyone)...

Try reading a bit first before saying "it's all rubbish".

I use bash in lieu of the intellect or want to select a better word, and I'm here because, what the heck, best case scenario I get to be a Defender of the Wiki, worst case scenario I'm banned and I turn into a veritable martyr. Whatever the case, I'm expressing my opinion. It's not always fond of Wikipedia, but it usually is.

Because the difficulty involved. Criminials know how to use encryption, proxy tunneling, ect. If i use many layers of proxy + super strong encryption, there's almost no chance anyone can be able to track me down. Internet is now used extensively by terrorist networks to train recruits because of the ease with which to hide one's identity. It's all a struggle between privacy and safety.
I know some credit card thieves, they usully live in some far out middle eastern countries, so even if police can track them down, there's almost no chance of prosecution. That's why online stores like Amazon, Barnes and Nobles don't ship products to these countries.




ya, you'll become a martyr, and wikipedia will give you 40 virgins

Mmm, virgins.

Yes, Slim Virgins to be precise.